This executive summary
introduces the more extensive Viewer's Guide. It is intended for those
who are unable to read the entire guide, but it should not be considered
a complete summary.

Accuracy and objectivity
are what we should be able to expect in a television documentary--especially
in a science documentary on a publicly-funded network. But the PBS
series Evolution distorts the scientific evidence and promotes a biased
religious agenda, thereby betraying our expectations and violating
PBS's own official policies.

There are many problems
with the Evolution series. Although some segments are interesting,
others just drag, and many are strangely irrelevant to the educational
case they purport to be making. The series almost totally ignores
the growing body of scientists who contend that Darwinism is in trouble
with the evidence, and it repeatedly dismisses all critics of Darwinism
as biblical literalists. This is not an objective documentary, but
a one-sided piece of advocacy, unworthy of a publicly funded broadcast
network.

Major shortcomings of Evolution
include:

Its failure to
present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the
evidence for Darwinian evolution.

Its systematic
omission of disagreements among evolutionary biologists themselves
about central claims in the series, and its complete failure to
report the views of scientists who dispute Darwinism at its roots.

Its excessive and
biased focus on religion, despite its insistence to be about science
rather than "the religious realm."

Its inappropriate
use by PBS, a government-funded agency, to organize and promote
a controversial political action agenda.

A. Scientific Inaccuracy

The failure to present accurately and fairly the scientific problems
with the evidence for Darwinian evolution.

"Evolution affects
almost every aspect of human life," claim the series producers,
"from medicine to agriculture to a person's choice of mate."
The seven episodes supposedly present "the underlying evidence"
for this contention, yet some of the evidence presented in the series
is known to be false, and the remaining evidence provides surprisingly
little support for Darwin's theory.

We are told that "powerful
evidence" for the common ancestry of all living things is the
universality of the genetic code. The genetic code is the way DNA
specifies the sequence of proteins in living cells, and Evolution
tells us that the code is the same in all living things. But the
series is badly out of date. Biologists have been finding exceptions
to the universality of the genetic code since 1979, and more exceptions
are turning up all the time. In its eagerness to present the "underlying
evidence" for Darwin's theory, Evolution ignores this awkward--and
potentially falsifying--fact.

Evolution also claims
that all animals inherited the same set of body-forming genes from
their common ancestor, and that this "tiny handful of powerful
genes" is now known to be the "engine of evolution."
The principal evidence we are shown for this is a mutant fruit fly
with legs growing out of its head. But the fly is obviously a hopeless
cripple--not the forerunner of a new and better race of insects.
And embryologists have known for years that the basic form of an
animal's body is established before these genes do anything at all.
In fact, the similarity of these genes in all types of animals is
a problem for Darwinian theory: If flies and humans have the very
same set of body-forming genes, why don't flies give birth to humans?
The Evolution series doesn't breathe a word about this well-known
paradox.

Most of the remaining
evidence in Evolution shows minor changes in existing species--such
as the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Antibiotic
resistance is indeed an important medical problem, but changes in
existing species don't really help Darwin's theory. Such changes
had been observed in domestic breeding for centuries before Darwin,
but they had never led to new species. Darwin's theory was that
the natural counterpart of this process produced not only new species,
but also fundamentally new forms of organisms. Evolution has lots
of interesting stories about scientists studying changes within
existing species, but it provides no evidence that such changes
lead to new species, much less to new forms of organisms. Nevertheless,
it manages to give the false impression that Darwin's theory has
been confirmed.

More details on problems
with the evidence for evolution presented in this series--including
citations to the relevant scientific literature--can be found in
the Viewer's Guide and its accompanying educational activities.

B. Omission of Disagreement

The systematic omission of disagreements among evolutionary biologists
themselves about central claims in the series, and the complete
failure to report the views of scientists who dispute Darwinism
at its roots.

"For all of us,
the future of religion, science and science education are at stake
in the creation-evolution debate," the series' narrator declares.
But if the "debate" is so important, why is there such
an effort to allow only one scientific point of view to be heard
in the series itself? Evolution starts right off by giving us the
false impression that the only opposition to Darwinian evolution
in the nineteenth century was religiously motivated. In fact, much
of the opposition to it came from scientists. While most scientists
became persuaded that some kind of evolution occurred, many of them
disputed Darwin's claim that it was driven by an unguided process
of natural selection acting on random variations. Instead, leading
scientists advocated a type of guided evolution that flatly contradicted
Darwin's core thesis. Because of such scientific criticism, according
to historian Peter Bowler, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural
selection "had slipped in popularity to such an extent that
by 1900 its opponents were convinced it would never recover."
The makers of Evolution have ignored this rich and fascinating history.

Much of the remainder
of the series consists--not of evidence--but of interviews with
evolutionary theorists giving us their interpretations of a few
ambiguous facts. And surprisingly, the series completely ignores
biologists who--though strongly committed to Darwinian evolution--are
also strongly critical of the interpretations being presented.

For example, several
episodes deal with human origins. We are treated to lots of wildlife
photography of apes, and numerous dramatizations featuring human
actors in "missing link" costumes, seen from afar--like
shots of "Bigfoot"--while we listen to stories told by
people who apparently think a very little evidence can go a very
long way. But Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature (and an
evolutionist), has pointed out that all the evidence for human evolution
between about 10 and 5 million years ago "can be fitted into
a small box." According to Gee, the conventional picture of
human evolution as lines of ancestry and descent is "a completely
human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human
prejudices." Putting it even more bluntly, Gee wrote in 1999:
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an
assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story--amusing,
perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."

The makers of Evolution
ignore such in-house critics, preferring to leave viewers with the
misleading impression that the evidence for human evolution is much
stronger than it really is.

Similar censorship of
in-house controversies marks Episodes Five and Six, which deal with
the role of sex and the evolution of mind. These episodes rely primarily
on interviews with proponents of a controversial new field called
"evolutionary psychology." But Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary
biologist at the University of Chicago, has written that "evolutionary
psychologists routinely confuse theory and speculation"--forget
about evidence! Coyne compares evolutionary psychology to now-discredited
Freudian psychology: "By judicious manipulation, every possible
observation of human behavior could be (and was) fitted into a Freudian
framework. The same trick is now being perpetrated by the evolutionary
psychologists. They, too, deal with their own dogmas, and not in
propositions of science."

So the makers of Evolution
have effectively censored important controversies within the field
of evolutionary biology. They have thereby missed a golden opportunity
to make science more interesting for the general public. They have
also left viewers with a one-sided and misleading view of what evolutionary
biology means to its own practitioners.

But the sin of omission
goes much deeper. The series also completely ignores the growing
number of scientists who think that Darwinian theory at its root
is inconsistent with the latest developments in biochemistry, paleontology,
embryology, genetics, information theory, and other fields. According
to these scientists, Darwin's unguided process of random variation
and natural selection is insufficient to account for the highly
ordered complexity found in biological systems, which show evidence
of directed development or "intelligent design." (Contrary
to the Darwinist claim, intelligent design theorists do not claim
that science can show us the identity of a designer.)

Scientists advocating
a design approach include professors at a number of colleges and
universities. The producers of Evolution are very aware of this
large and growing movement. This is clear from the background materials
distributed to PBS affiliates, which include answers to anticipated
challenges from intelligent design scholars.

Early efforts to persuade
the producers to include scientific critics of Darwinism in the
body of the series were rebuffed. Instead, the producers invited
some of these critics to come on camera to tell their "personal
faith stories" for the last program (Episode Seven), "What
About God?" In this way, all critics of Darwinian evolution
could be portrayed as religiously motivated. Scientists who criticize
Darwinism from an intelligent design perspective did not want to
contribute to this misleading stereotype, and so refused to be interviewed
for this episode.

By suppressing real disagreements
among evolutionary biologists, and by ignoring scientists who think
that Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed, the makers of Evolution
present viewers with a picture that is more like propaganda than
honest journalism. Instead of reporting about evolution, which would
include coverage of the theory's problems and critics, the producers
of the series present a one-sided advocacy of Darwinism, treating
their Darwinian brand of evolutionary theory like an infallible
religious dogma. Indeed, they refuse to grant that even a single
fact exists that might not corroborate Darwin's theory, insisting
that "all known scientific evidence supports evolution."
This dogmatic attitude is completely at odds with the spirit of
scientific inquiry. By treating Darwin's theory as something that
is beyond criticism or contrary evidence, Evolution leaves viewers
with a shallow and misleading understanding of how science is supposed
to work.

C. Religious Bias

The excessive and biased focus on religion, despite the series'
insistence to be about science rather than "the religious
realm."

According to the producers,
"the Evolution project presents facts and the accumulated results
of scientific inquiry; which means understanding the underlying
evidence behind claims of fact and proposed theories. . . . In keeping
with solid science journalism we examine empirically-testable explanations
for `what happened,' but don't speak to the ultimate cause of `who
done it'--the religious realm."

Yet the series speaks
to the religious realm from start to finish. Episode One is organized
around a fictionalized account of Darwin's life, which begins with
a scene pitting Charles Darwin, the enlightened scientist, against
Captain Robert FitzRoy, the supposed religious fundamentalist. In
fact, however, the two men shared similar views when Darwin sailed
with FitzRoy aboard the HMS Beagle, because Darwin at that time
in his life was more religious and FitzRoy was more scientific than
this scene implies. Distorting the historical facts, this scene
serves to set the stage for all that follows by casting everything
in the stereotype of scientist versus religious fundamentalist.

This first episode takes
its name, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," from a book by philosopher
Daniel Dennett. Dennett regards Darwinism as a "universal acid"
that eats through virtually all traditional beliefs--especially
Christianity--and he tells us that Darwin's theory of evolution
by natural selection was "the single best idea anybody ever
had." People "used to think of meaning coming from on
high and being ordained from the top down," Dennett says, but
we must now "replace the traditional idea of God the creator
with the idea of the process of natural selection doing the creating."

We subsequently meet
biologist Kenneth Miller sitting in a church, where he says: "I'm
an orthodox Catholic and I'm an orthodox Darwinist." He later
explains that "if God is working today in concert with the
laws of nature, with physical laws and so forth, He probably worked
in concert with them in the past. In a sense, in a sense, He's the
guy who made up the rules of the game, and He manages to act within
those rules." Yet we are given no hint of the great range of
religious views between that of the Bible-thumping FitzRoy and the
evolution-friendly Miller. The episode concludes with historian
James Moore, who tells us that "Darwin's vision of nature was,
I believe, fundamentally a religious vision."

Subsequent episodes include
religious imagery such as Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel painting
of God touching Adam (while the narrator informs us that our origin,
despite the painting, was really not special), and religious music
such as the kyrie eleison from an African mass (while we watch actors
presumably playing our ancestors walk across an African plain).
And if we had any doubts that the message of Evolution is fundamentally
about religion, those doubts are dispelled in the final episode,
"What About God?"

"The majesty of
our Earth, the beauty of life," Episode Seven begins, "are
they the result of a natural process called evolution, or the work
of a divine creator?" We are taught that ignorant biblical
literalists are the only people who reject Darwinian evolution,
and that people who want to sneak religion into the science classroom
often intimidate or censor Darwinists. Nothing is said about the
many critics of Darwinian evolution who are not even Christians,
much less biblical literalists. And nothing is said about the growing
number of cases in America in which advocates of Darwinism intimidate
and censor their scientific critics.

We are also told in this
episode that U.S. science education was "neglected" between
the 1925 Scopes trial and the 1957 launch of Sputnik, because evolution
was "locked out of America's public schools" during those
decades. We are supposed to believe that religious opponents of
Darwinism stunted scientific progress. Yet American schools during
those supposedly benighted decades produced twice as many Nobel
Prize-winners in physiology and medicine as all other countries
in the world put together.

Although the producers
of Evolution promised not to speak to the religious realm, they
speak to it forcefully and repeatedly. The take-home lesson of the
series is unmistakably clear: Religion that fully accepts Darwinian
evolution is good. Religion that doesn't is bad. Now, the producers
of Evolution are entitled to their opinion. In America, everyone
is. But why is this opinion presented as science, on publicly supported
television?

D. Promoting a Political Agenda

The inappropriate use of the series by PBS, a government-funded
agency, to promote a controversial political agenda.

PBS is funded in part
by American taxpayers. As a government-funded agency, it is supposed
to be held to high standards of fairness. It is absolutely inappropriate
for PBS to engage in activities designed to influence the political
process by promoting one viewpoint at the expense of others. Yet
an internal document prepared by the Evolution Project/WGBH Boston
shows that those behind the series are trying to do just that. Sent
to PBS affiliates during the summer of 2001, the document outlines
the overall goals for the PBS series and describes its marketing
strategy.

According to the document,
one of the goals is to "co-opt existing local dialogue about
teaching evolution in schools." Another goal is to "promote
participation," including "getting involved with local
school boards." Moreover, "government officials"
are identified as one of the target audiences for the series, and
the publicity campaign accompanying the series will include the
writing of op-eds and "guerilla/viral marketing." Clearly,
one purpose of Evolution is to influence Congress and school boards
and to promote political action regarding how evolution is taught
in public schools.

The political agenda
behind Evolution is made even more explicit by its enlistment of
Eugenie Scott as one of the official spokespersons for the project.
Scott runs the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an
advocacy group that by its own description is dedicated to "defending
the teaching of evolution in the public schools." As a crucial
propaganda tool, the NCSE routinely lumps together all critics of
Darwinism as "creationists." According to the group's
web site, the NCSE provides "expert testimony for school board
hearings," supplies citizens with "advice on how to organize"
when "faced with local creationist challenges," and assists
legal organizations that litigate "evolution/creation cases."
It is a single-issue group that takes only one side in the political
debate over evolution in public education. It is therefore completely
inappropriate for PBS to enlist NCSE's executive director as an
official spokesperson on this project--while excluding other views.

Imagine, for a moment,
that PBS created a seven-part series on abortion that was designed
to "co-opt existing local dialogue" about abortion legislation,
and to influence national and local government officials regarding
abortion legislation. Imagine further that PBS defended only one
viewpoint in the abortion debate, and enlisted as an official spokesperson
the head of a major lobbying group promoting that viewpoint. Would
anyone think this was either appropriate or fair?

E. Summary

In summary, the PBS Evolution
series distorts the scientific evidence, omits scientific objections
to Darwin's theory, mischaracterizes scientific critics of Darwinism,
promotes a biased view of religion, and takes a partisan position
in a controversial political debate. By doing this, PBS has forsaken
objectivity, violated journalistic ethics, and betrayed the public
trust. It is for these reasons that we have prepared Getting the
Facts Straight: A Viewer's Guide to PBS's "Evolution."

Note: Quotations from the producers about their goals are
taken from "The Evolution Controversy: Use It Or Lose It"--a
document prepared by Evolution Project/WGBH Boston and distributed
to PBS affiliates on June 15, 2001. The document concludes by suggesting
that "any further questions" should be directed to WGBH
at http://www.wgbh.org/. The quotation from Peter Bowler is from
his book Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1989). Quotations from Henry Gee are from his
book, In Search of Deep Time (New York: The Free Press, 1999). Quotations
from Jerry Coyne are from his book review, "Of Vice and Men,"
from The New Republic (April 3, 2000).